Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37526194›Full record

ReviewThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2023

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

Filip Bellon, Ivan Solà, Gabriel Gimenez-Perez, Marta Hernández, Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Esther Rubinat, Didac Mauricio

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Perioperative hyperglycemia and postoperative outcomes: a retrospective cohort study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. High-performance automated abstract screening with large language model ensembles.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Random Blood Glucose: Episode 1.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Filip BellonHealthcare Research Group (GRECS), Institute of Biomedical Research in Lleida (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain.
Ivan SolàIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.
Gabriel Gimenez-PerezEndocrinology Section, Department of Medicine, Hospital General de Granollers, Granollers, Spain.
Marta HernándezDepartment of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida (IRBLLEIDA), Lleida, Spain.
Maria-Inti MetzendorfInstitute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Esther Rubinat *Healthcare Research Group (GRECS), Institute of Biomedical Research in Lleida (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain.
Didac Mauricio *CIBER of Diabetes and Associated Metabolic Disease, Barcelona, Spain.
Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida · ESCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública · ESCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Diabetes y Enfermedades Metabólicas Asociadas · ESHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEHospital General de Granollers · ESHospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova · ESUniversitat de Vic - Universitat Central de Catalunya · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery.

objectivesTo assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery. SEARCH

methodsFor this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE). MAIN

resultsA total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsHigh-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HypoglycemiaBlood GlucoseGlycemic ControlHumansHypoglycemic AgentsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID37526194
PMCPMC10392034
OpenAlexW4385442641

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.